Response to Wilentz et al.

[Max Sawicky]

. . .
Just so, Nader says one day that there is no difference Bore and
Gush--whoops, Gore and Bush--and the very next, that Bush (not Gore) would
be so bad for the environment that environmentalists would mobilize.
Kevin Quinn

nice to hear from you kevin.  goin to n'awlins?

on the substance, these are logically independent premises, namely:

a.  Bush and Gore are the same (which I don't believe, but that's beside the
point)
b.  Bush would mobilize enviros because he *looks* worse than Gore, not
because he is worse

Neither of these implies 'the worse, the better.'  You could say (b)
implies, the worse things *look,* the better.  Now we could acknowledge that
the worse things are, the worse they are likely to look.  But that doesn't
imply the worse things look, the worse they are.

max